IGN's review of ChoroQ

**Clash!** · 14 Oct 2004, 08:15 AM

I like the ABCDF system myself, but that of couse can get silly to when they start to implament +-. "Its a C game, but a better C game so...C+"

It seems like its a matter of the reviewers getting scared that they might not have made a good enough point in their review so they want as much possibilites to express what they mean I guess.

The extra little decimal point is like another review in it self,
-"Of 8.0 games I give it a 7, so its a 8.7"
-"This 8.0 game is a poor 8.0 game, so I give it a 8.1"
-"What a classic 8.0 game! 8.9!"

**MVS** · 14 Oct 2004, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by shidoshi

I think the problem with that is that if you work on that scale, then half of your ratings system (1 through 5) is rendered useless. This was one of the bitches I had at GameFan - because of a handful of reasons, the GF 1 ~ 100 scale ended up being "95% of games fall between 80 ~ 100, and the other seventy-nine numbers are there when you want to trash a game and you just pick a random number."

If you want to equate a ratings system to a school grading scale, then just switch to ABCDF and be done with it. I think that if you are going to use a one through ten scale, then five indeed should be "average."

But I think even a one through ten scale gives the reviewer too many possible choices for a score. Some will think I'm crazy, but I think the less choices, the better. Five stars is probably one of the best systems out there, done like NextGen indeed did. The more numbers you have, the more confusion over what means what, and the more nonsense each number becomes. Seriously, for anybody who read GameFan, what in the hell was the difference between an 81, an 84, or an 87? I worked there, and I can't even begin to tell you. Given one hundred possible choices for a final score to a reviewer, especially the GameFan crew, was an absolute mess from the word go.

The fewer choices for a review score the reviewer is given, the more sense the final score will make, and the better off the reader will be.

Makes sense.

**Rocca** · 14 Oct 2004, 10:09 AM

So now there's another douche aside Hilary Goldstein that reviews on IGN?

I think we're going to get along just famously.

**James** · 14 Oct 2004, 01:33 PM

By the way, what little I played of ChoroQ (CQHG4) left me thinking it was garbage. I quickly passed the review to a freelancer.

I'm a big fan of Road Trip (CQHG2).

Now that's an opinion that worries me far more than all the ranting IGN posted. Concise, too.

James

**MarkRyan** · 14 Oct 2004, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by haohmaru

I typed this up in about 7 minutes. Think IGN could hammer this out and make it clear and concise for their writers to follow? It's not rocket science. Doing descriptions for 1-10 scores, 1-5 scores, or even 1-3 scores is even easier.

What a great idea!

That page is linked in the ratings box of every IGN review.

**Joust Williams** · 14 Oct 2004, 02:28 PM

How about no stupid score at all? Because 7 means "very interesting concept that doesn't work well", "old concept that works very well", "buggy game with 90 hours of gameplay", etc etc etc.

A score doesn't convey anything because there are reviewers who give a game a 7 and another an 8 in the same week and prefer the game that's a 7 because the 8 has a lot of issues that might not matter to them but will to a lot of other people.

**Shapermc** · 14 Oct 2004, 02:37 PM

When I review movies in my live journal (yea, I said it) I use a 4 star system. 0 is reserved for a special event that I have never witnessed, 1-2 stars is an at-your-risk kind of movie, 3-4 is a put-it-on-your-list movie. I don't like to resort to 1/2 stars, but some times it is needed and will usually signify that I am having trouble deciding between bad and really bad or good and really good. 2.5 is a head scratching kind of movie. So, technically we almost have an 10 point system right?!?! But it can be viewed effectively enough to utilise every single part of the scale with out the association of a % (since it is 4 stars not 5 stars). I have debated many times on just switching to a 2 star scale...

**MarkRyan** · 14 Oct 2004, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

How about no stupid score at all?

That, my friend, would be Heaven.

But then the idiot readers would have to actually read the reviews and not just look at scores to fuel their fanboyism.